Where are our journalists on the obvious continuing ties with the Republican Party and Russian agents? In Ultra, Rachel Maddow detailed how over 20 U.S. congressmen in the early 1940s being paid by Nazi agents to promote Nazi propaganda were never brought to justice. It's still hard to wrap one's head around that. And here we are again, …
Where are our journalists on the obvious continuing ties with the Republican Party and Russian agents? In Ultra, Rachel Maddow detailed how over 20 U.S. congressmen in the early 1940s being paid by Nazi agents to promote Nazi propaganda were never brought to justice. It's still hard to wrap one's head around that. And here we are again, with today's journalists in 2024 still resistant to place every headline on Trump and the GOP in the context of Russian influence. Last month Lev Parnas spoke plainly that Trump working again with Paul Manafort means a direct connection with the Kremlin. And once again, media may do the honest reporting AFTER the election, if at all.
Dr. Richardson makes a case in point with her skepticism about Trump claiming to raise 50 million dollars at a fundraiser, conveniently twice the number of Pres. Biden's recent record fundraiser. Yet the screaming headline in the NY Times was: "Trump Fundraiser Rakes in more than 50.5 million..." instead of justified skepticism "Without Verification Trump Team Claims Raising Double the Amount of Biden Fundraiser." Given the sheer number of lies, you would think every Trump headline would have a perfunctory caveat. And that's something media should be placing front and center, don't you all think?
Another problem is that the Judiciary has treated this former President with kid gloves rather than boxing gloves for no discernable reason. He has gotten and continues to get special treatment. A lot of our present problems would have been averted had the following occurred. Firstly, Robert Mueller should have indicted Trump, he had the evidence but chose not to do so on the basis of a so-called guideline. Mueller was afraid and took the easy way out. Merrick Garland Muellered America by not doing his job slow walking waiting more than a year to begin his investigation. He too was afraid. And lastly, the SJC appears to be on the take as well. By all rights, they should have let the Appeals Court decision that a President is not above the law, stand. At this time, people that could have done something about Trump are either afraid or corrupt or both. And I haven't forgotten about the foolish millions of Americans that keep supporting him.
You make important points (except for the "no discernible reason" part). Media investigation revealed that our Supreme Court is corrupt, beholden to GOP donors. Yet media continue to relay news about Supreme Court decisions as if they aren't 100% politically bounded (instead of "Heritage Foundation-Appointed Supreme Court Justices vote to...") To my mind, the most non-reported story of our time is that after the January 6 Congressional Committee findings, a Democratic Executive Branch refused and still refuses to swiftly prosecute the ringleaders of the Jan. 6 insurrection, many who were elected officials. The reason is less important than the simple fact that they have decided not to do it. We all know there is no excuse for a 3 year wait before a trial of Donald Trump. Don't you think the failure of our media on this story is almost as great as the failure of our government itself?
I absolutely agree. The media, in their attempt to be fair (so they say) has not accurately or honestly reported the truth. For all I know and suspect, money has corrupted them as well to the extent that they carefully weave their way through the middle of this quagmire, so that no matter who becomes President they'll be safe. They and others including the Democratic Party have yet to come to the realization that we are at war with an internal enemy that would take away our freedoms. It's not a time to be nice or play it safe.
You may be right. I suspect it's more fear of GOP accusations of bias. It's strange, isn't it? Journalists laugh out loud when Putin calls them biased. But it's a farther leap psychologically to accept the plain truth that the GOP is actively working with a foreign adversary and spreading lies to the American public on a daily basis.
We are so far past any legitimacy of fear of liberal bias. This is, and has been since he started running the first time, a question of democracy vs. autocracy. If they didn't know it then, they certainly should have known it soon into his term. It is a journalist's job to know this, and shout it from the rooftops.
You may find to be interesting this document n the Amicus Brief to the Trump immunity case. (I think I sourced this link from another part of this thread.)
This brief is memorable for its succinct and clear language explaining how and why presidential immunity is a potential wrecking ball for a democratic society..
As Americans, don't we all feel deep shame that our military has to come helmet in hand to beg the Supreme Court not to put them in the position of having to each decide between following our laws or following the orders of their "immune to laws" President? What low point for us all and a sign that our Supreme Court is corrupt beyond repair.
I really believe President Biden needs to appoint two more Justices to undo the effect of Trump and Senator McConnell packing the Court. Had Att'y Gen'l Garland's nomination gone through, as it should have, the Court would be five to four in favor of Republican appointed Justices.
Please send a post card to Chief Justice Roberts and tell him that we do not trust his court to protect the 2024 election. Tump et al will file dozens of merit less lawsuits and cause other chaos. This court has already shown that they are protecting Trump from prosecution. They already seem to have a favorite candidate. It happened in 2000 and the world has suffered greatly.
Why to Roberts and not to Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson? That's my point. Roberts is beholden to the GOP, so of course he has zero interest in protecting the election. It's a given. What about the three liberal justices, though? If their job is to protect our Constitution, how can they remain silent?
I agree with you in theory, Russell, but what can the lady libs do? Even if they get bigly vociferous, then what? I used to think Roberts cared enough about his and SCOTUS' legacy to avoid anything as egregious as granting the foul one immunity, but now not so much.
Thanks for the reply. What NY Times and other main news outlets can do is to create headlines with proper context. If the GOP is working again with Russian agents, then every news article on the GOP must say that at the outset instead of presenting them as a party of equal legitimacy to the Democratic Party. And investigate, investigate, investigate!
Any justice on SCOTUS that rules in favor of presidential immunity, should be impeached. We threw off the shackles of kingship and royalty 148 years ago.
Uh… the problem not one slimeball. The problem is the 74 million slimeballs whose odious views the slimball-in-chief represents. This is the America we live in and have been living in for a long time. Half of us are not fit for decent company.
The concern, expressed earlier to Mr Burnham elsewhere on this thread, is also explained another worry. What happens when a likeable version of Trump comes along?
Reagan was the likable version of Trump. Not to me. Nor any Republican for that matter. I hate every last one of the SOBs. But likable to most people, and he used that to do a tremendous amount of damage, so I do get your point.
Yes. Our media needs to do a better job of fact checking everything that they print about Trump. For example, that he raised 175 mil. Well, as it gets investigated, he must get a bond by a NY based bond company, not a CA based one. Also, they have to have 10% liquidity for the bond they are covering him for, but they do not. And, also, Trump's lawyers told the appeals court that no one would give them the full bond, but the guy who is bonding Trump out says he offered him the full amount, so that is more lies. Rachel Maddow discusses who this bail bondsman is in more detail, and it was posted on my Branch of Democrats Abroad Germany. Here is a link. https://topnewsshow.com/the-rachel-maddow-show-4-8-24/
Thank you for this link. Something funky is going on why my computer. This and the previous link open up this Microsoft warning that says I need to contact the company. I have seen it before; it is a "phishionable" material. Hope that this phishing is not occurring to anyone else.
Too bad those of us without cable TV have been excluded from hearing Rachel. MSNBC used to send out a newsletter that allowed me to connect and listen to quite a few MSNBC programs including Rachel. But now that seems to be gone. They want you to "sign in" to your TV provider in order to listen. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !
I listen to her weekly via podcast. I'm using Grover (free download from the Microsoft Store - I don't know about Apple version), and I get Rachel, Chris Hayes, Nicole Wallace, Jen Psaki, Lawrence O'Donnell and Ari Melber. I think other MSNBC hosts are available, I just haven't looked for them.
I don't have a tv, so I just get links that people send me. I don't want to pay either when it used to be that the main stations were free. That is why when I want to watch soccer I watch on Spanish language stations. I do not have to understand the running commentary to understand Ariba, ariba, and Go-o-o-o-l!
Done, ditto! And thanks for the appropriate 'nag'...
Subject: Ludicrously lame journalistic standards with regard to reporting about tRump, et al.
Dear NYT Editorial,
To quote an apt comment to yesterday’s Heather Cox Richardson ‘Letter’:
“Dr. Richardson makes a case in point with her skepticism about Trump claiming to raise 50 million dollars at a fundraiser, conveniently twice the number of Pres. Biden's recent record fundraiser. Yet the screaming headline in the NY Times was: "Trump Fundraiser Rakes in more than 50.5 million..." instead of justified skepticism "Without Verification Trump Team Claims Raising Double the Amount of Biden Fundraiser." Given the sheer number of lies, you would think every Trump headline would have a perfunctory caveat. And that's something media should be placing front and center, don't you all think?”
Absolutely!
I’ve been a loyal reader & subscriber for decades but of late I have had to stop defending the sloppy and often inane editorial NYT decisions and grossly inconsistently applied ‘standards’ regarding way too much of the political & international reporting, especially such things as verification in toto before printing a particular story.
In the last day or two, the NYT ran a long feature about a 75-year-old doctor, and some of his patients, and their assessment of the physical and mental fitness of President Biden related to his age, with a somewhat cursory mention of Trump's age. I sent yet another comment to the Times about its bias on the subject.
There is bio age and age in years. Apparently the idiots who work for the press and a huge portion of the American people cannot tell the difference. Biden is clearly biologically younger than Trump. Some may be genes, but a lot of it is lifestyle. Also, when I heard that Ivana fell down the stairs to her death at a point when she was getting inconvenient to Trump because she was claiming credit for things, I noticed how careful the press was not to even imply that he might have pushed her. They did not go there to even prove why he could not have done it. That is how lazy and Trump serving they are. So, he commits treasonous acts and they don't publish it or treat it like a walk in the park on a sunny day with a balmy breeze. I have zero respect for them as a publication. They are just another rag coming out of NYC like the Post and WSJ.
More specifically reading them is like reading a Russian Bot! This has been my complaint for over a year. It is apparently growing obvious to everyone.
I don't read their political stories, but do read the science section, the food section, the book review, their global round up on line, and I do the crossword and a few of their other puzzles.
Michele…Unfortunately the NYT games are addictive for me. Altho it is too late in life to aspire to genius, darned if I don’t frequently struggle with putting the game down until I get that silly affirmation. Often fun…. but sometimes in gnawing way. I may need a step program. lol. (I do “read articles” as well…lol)
I was doing them first thing every day too, as I skimmed down, but I have given them up and replaced them with WaPo. Still an oligarchic Republican production, but more coverage and more commentary on articles. Also, we like their crossword puzzle.
I will maintain my Times subscription until, a.- trump is defeated in '24 and is in prison, or b.-trump is elected and his first order of business is to take over the formerly free press. After that, no real reporting will be possible here. My last act will be to sue the Times for the price of my subscription going back to 2015.
Bryan Sean, The NY Times is not faultless; withal, its reporting is generally solid; the paper provides excellent investigative reports; Paul Krugman's columns about the economy are hard to match in any newspaper; many essays are enlightening and world coverage is good. In addition, The Washington Post, MSNBC, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, AP, Reuters, Politico and The Guardian, among others, along with several substacks, including LFAA and Timothy Snyder's 'Thinking about... ' all contribute greatly to my knowledge of the important issues and players at this time. I know that is a lot, and there is more, but I would not dismiss any of them and have not even mentioned very worthwhile foreign sources.
I agree with you. But they should be called out on their cowardice not to preface any news from Trump or the GOP without the context that it comes from a man and a political party that no longer adheres to facts and truth.
What I don't understand is whether they understand who Trump is and what he will do as President again -- how they and all their cohorts will be completely at his mercy without the rule of law to shelter them in their alleged role as as journalists enabling a democratic citizenry to properly govern their own country.
I wonder the same thing. What if they're just so used to the polarity of a two party system that they can't themselves wrap their heads around the new reality that currently we have one political party and one criminal group of highly organized insurgents working with foreign adversaries? I mean, it does sound so dystopian sci-fi, doesn't it?
I noted Eric Lipton's interview of Jared & the status of his Saudi billions.
Eric was interviewed on MSNBC.
I am a very long time Reader of Paul Krugman. I have corresponded with NYTt's legally sharp Eric Lipton, who just completed a penetrating interview of Jared.
I benefited by your NYT "gift" article the other day, thank you again. I can access important work such as one coming in this coming Sunday's magazine.
I prefer using my dollars supporting the many valuable Substack Authors & commenters such as FERN. : -)
I appreciate your choice, Bryan. Several of the publications that I listed provide a good range of subjects. Three or four substacks wouldn't cover what I am get from one of them. As it is, I am reading 6+substacks, without counting Nature Briefing and newsletters provided by several of the newspapers. I highly recommend the Washington Post's, Today's WorldView, authored by Ishaan Tharoor. We each juggle according to areas of interest and budgets. My challenge is where to cut down, because I like to do a few other things in addition to READING!!!
Bryan, I'm getting closer, but enjoy the Times for its other content -- Cooking, Games, Science, the Wirecutter, etc. so I may never cancel. It's a dilemma for me.
The sad thing is that they don't care. I had a Times sub and cancelled it, moving to the Washington Post. It didn't take long for them to be even worse so I went to The Guardian, which I had until their awful writing on the report that that hack at Justice wrote about Biden's age. Seriously, there's nothing left.
Same here. Honestly, I get enough from these letters alone, which I've joked to my wife that I think of as the daily "Asshold Gazette." Sadly, the reality isn't all that funny.
I hear your voice Mark. I follow certain world class Authors regardless of their current Platform. such as ANNE APPLEBAUM who is a historian on Ukraine & reporter anything Euro from Moldova to Finland. Anne is able to unravel complex social-political dynamic..
I wrote this below on Feb 13, 2024 to editorial@nytimes.com. To date I have not had the courtesy of a reply. I just re-sent it!
"I lived for many years in NY from 1965-1998 and loved reading the NY Times. I chose to end my subscription today because the coverage has become very unbalanced and irresponsible in giving the former president so much space and in only focusing on the negative aspects of the current president. I am not the only one noticing this. You might take a look at Jennifer Rubin of the WaPo and others to see what I mean.
The two men (both older for sure) are trying to be the winner the election in November and, normally, your coverage might be considered fair. Perhaps that is how your editors were taught in their journalism schools? DEMOCRACY is the issue in this coming election and the Republican candidate will turn our country into an authoritarian one. Democracy will no longer exist.
You MUST do a better job of understanding this and urging your writers to focus on the accomplishments of a very smart, efficient, honorable and compassionate President Biden. Do Not Just Keep being negative. He does not deserve this and We The People do not either!
If I see the trend shifting at the NY Times, I will be back. Otherwise, sadly, this is Goodbye! I would like the courtesy of a reply please."
Isn’t the choice between Neutral and Objective? Like many outlets, they stay neutral, presenting both sides as though there is no well-defined context around either candidate. To me, objectivity is fully informed, and reflecting that information in some judgement of the truthfulness of each side.
Personally I'd like to get all the facts, which includes context imho, and then draw my own conclusions. I don't need journalism to think for me, but to use resources I don't have to get background and check facts.
You’re right. We don’t need journalists to do our thinking for us. What they would do well to do is provide basic information AND context — that’s what news analysis is.
A bunch of facts, especially presented willy-nilly, without people being able to figure out if all the info is there, or how parts of it relate to other parts, are not as helpful as some might think.
People LIKE news analysis, not to have someone think for them, but to stimulate thought, and to let us see the full picture - we don’t all have all the ideas all on our own. It doesn’t hurt to hear someone else’s opinion now and then. BUT, there’s a difference between news and analysis and informed commentary … they have their places, for whichever ones we feel like paying attention to.
I got tired of complaining, and was willing to give up the puzzles as a form of boycott, when I cancelled my subscription. My first warning was before Biden was elected when I told them the April before that I was worried about Trump letting us know he was going to engage in a coup, and they did not publish it in a comment to an article. I had also written that Baron should be removed from the home by the Department of Children and Family Services for neglect during covid when I saw what a quack his dad was of it, and his mom too. I understand that there are children in more obvious dire physical need, but emotionally that household must be a ticking time bomb for the children. So, they send me links, but I delete them, and it feels satisfying. I am not yet there with the WaPo. My daughter and I often do the crossword puzzles together over Signal.
Even MSNBC reported the $50MM as fact without context.
If the bond is bogus is that a fraud upon the Court? Perpetrated by Trump and his buddy who used companies under his control to place the bond? Would the full bond requirement pre the appeals court ruling be reinstated?
Truth Social investing should be under investigation beyond the two already tied to insider trading.
Trump should be a pariah but billionaires and Republican politicians flock to him.
Tim Scott has bizarrely debased himself to curry favor with Trump in hopes of a VP nomination.
As far as I can tell there is no context for the 50 mil. TFG hosted a private 250K/plate fundraiser. We don't know how many attended because journalists were excluded.
About the bond, I think it is under investigation in and of itself because the company isn't NY-based. James has demanded that the co. 'justify' its bond by April 22, meaning prove that it has the cash to pay up and possibly disclose the collateral TFG put up. I haven't heard if the appeals court is looking into the lie about no company willing or able to post the whole $454 mil that led to the reduction. It has been reported that the guy who posted the 175 was willing to go for the whole 454, so f I were on the appeals bench I'd be pretty pissed off at the poor pitiful me act.
Yes, they report it, but then continue to publish Trump news with headlines that don't reflect any of that context. It's a bizarre disconnect pretending the news on collusion and election interference isn't related to the daily actions and statements of Trump and his campaign.
But don’t you understand that yes the New York Times also wants readers in order to sell advertising? Cynical to not think they too want a cut of the MAGA business.
Fern, as I read HCR's reporting of trompy's team managing his image by using edited video rather than standing before a live broad audience, I immediately thought that they may use AI videos to make him look younger, thinner and a more effective speaker -- not to mention inserting him into situations (let's say disaster relief) that he'd not otherwise to participate in -- thus lending him some humanity which he lacks as much as that $175MM.
And they can always show how humane and caring tfg is by doctoring his humane and caring tossing of paper towel rolls to Hurricane Maria victims in Puerto Rico.
I’m happy to have made you smile. And may I ask the origin of your name? I am always curious about surnames and yours has puzzled me from the first time I saw it. This may make you laugh: I remember when Hank Aaron beat Babe Ruth’s home run record, but I heard it and assumed from the last name, if I thought of it, that he was Jewish. Two days ago, as the anniversary of the hit was being celebrated, I saw Hank Aaron on TV. He was black like Jackie Robinson. Had a good laugh with a black friend and hope you will laugh too.
I'm a former journalist, having spent many years as a freelancer (including for the NYT) and then as a senior editor at HBR. More than once, I have seen editorial decisions made at the top that were beyond sketchy in a play for the almighty dollar. Once, a publication I wrote for put a Microsoft ad on the front cover, and people quit over it. Unfortunately, one does not need a certificate or a license to practice "journalism" with the result that journalistic ethics have long since gone by the wayside.
Bronwyn, I tend to be cynical about signing these sorts of petitions, believing them to be more about data harvesting than anything they hope to accomplish. As a former journalist, do you think the publishing Powers-That-Be would actually agree to alter their coverage based on these petitions?
(As to data harvesting, I've donated to various Dem candidates online over the last 20 years or so, and I get bombarded daily with text or email requests for donations from candidates around the country. If I block the number or hit "unsubscribe" they just switch and hit me up again. Having my inboxes fill with these requests, as well as from others who purchase the data, gets annoying.)
I exclusively send donations by check. I do get a lot of junk mail from candidates, but I recycle it. I also never share my cell phone number, so no texts.
For fun, I open Fox comments to combat the expected remarks of those influenced by those trolls. Funny they exhibit classical , terminology and are fully brainwashed. It’s not possible to differentiate between the Russian trolls and their victims; they both exhibit the same stances. History often repeats itself. Will we rid ourselves of this current menace ? Or will we re-elect him again? I’m now making bets.
I listened to the Ultra podcast in late 2022. I felt it was an important period of history to understand in the context of the right wing threats to our democracy today.
After paying attention to the current drama leading up to the Trump trials, I recently decided to go back to the second half of Rachel’s series which dealt with the sedition trial and its surprise mistrial outcome. Perhaps had all of the senators involved been prosecuted in full, fascism might have been expunged rather than simply driven into hiding.
Interesting that after the mistrial, conclusive evidence was found in Germany detailing the extent of the collusion. Unfortunately, president Truman intervened in the release of a report on that collusion and the senate members who were involved. The Nazi regime was an internal political threat to democracy not just a military threat. Truman’s reasoning was that it was too explosive to become public but perhaps the real reason was related to his own prior membership in the senate.
The podcast is still available (MSNBC.COM/ULTRA) and Rachel has a book in progress. It is important history.
Yes, and the "too explosive" argument is sickening. If you treat the America public like children, they'll behave that way. We are quite able to believe some elected officials are criminals and we expect them held to account.
It’s ironic that media reports on, for instance, a man caught in the act of murdering someone and refers to the crime as ‘alleged.’ That word in front of #45 claims of anything would do.
Russell, you would think and you can find articles, but I guess not in media like the NYT. The Oregonian's big story yesterday was how people can look up the PERS retirement benefits of every retired public employee who worked in Oregon. This has been possible for several years, but hey, people need to be reminded. It's called stirring the pot. Btw, the person who receives the highest monthly benefit is a former Oregon football coach.
The Ultra by Maddow was an incredible piece. Highly recommend. The lack of print worth reading but for the sensationalism, and online venues , put many a newspaper in jeopardy atop ‘downsizing’ every business laborer knows..signs of the times.
I’d be first to sign their ticket -them traitors/the Magats /the Russianinskys, on a slow boat (one way) to Russia…here’s your sign!
Russell, Dave Fake News reports that both the NYT and WAPO are implementing a new daily feature called “The Trump Lies”. Using the top quarter of Page 3 in bold script, it says “REFER TO PAGE ONE ABOVE THE FOLD. Here within contains our own lies”
Please note neither their news or editorial departments approved this feature; it is the work of the new underground movement, “The Demosthenes Society” that hacked the copywriter’s password
The only people that believe tfg are his sycophants. Most everything he says is the exact opposite of the truth. If the press were doing its job it would fact check every quote tfg made.
I've been watching the NY Times coverage with increasing dismay. They seem to be constantly beating the drum that America is broken and that Biden is not the solution. Meanwhile they give Trump a glossing over--such as the headline on Trump raising $50 million. Can't figure out what's going on with the Gray Lady. But mostly they relentlessly come back to Biden being unpopular, too old, not the solution, doing poorly in polls, etc.
the New York Times, "the paper of record" has come down; the editorial and news staff, headline writers; the SENSIBILITY, what and how they choose to portray the news, regarding what is important to report and where they put it in their "paper" especially online in these fraught times has been very disappointing. I have been reading this paper for years and defending it. It seems that the minds that run it now are often irresponsible. They are skating on their old reputation. Younger people don't know better than this, a paper that screams of wanting to portray both sides for fear of criticism and loss of readership.., the bottom line/advertisers.
Where are our journalists on the obvious continuing ties with the Republican Party and Russian agents? In Ultra, Rachel Maddow detailed how over 20 U.S. congressmen in the early 1940s being paid by Nazi agents to promote Nazi propaganda were never brought to justice. It's still hard to wrap one's head around that. And here we are again, with today's journalists in 2024 still resistant to place every headline on Trump and the GOP in the context of Russian influence. Last month Lev Parnas spoke plainly that Trump working again with Paul Manafort means a direct connection with the Kremlin. And once again, media may do the honest reporting AFTER the election, if at all.
Dr. Richardson makes a case in point with her skepticism about Trump claiming to raise 50 million dollars at a fundraiser, conveniently twice the number of Pres. Biden's recent record fundraiser. Yet the screaming headline in the NY Times was: "Trump Fundraiser Rakes in more than 50.5 million..." instead of justified skepticism "Without Verification Trump Team Claims Raising Double the Amount of Biden Fundraiser." Given the sheer number of lies, you would think every Trump headline would have a perfunctory caveat. And that's something media should be placing front and center, don't you all think?
How much longer can this country permit this odious man to slime our Republic? 🤢
Better yet: place a two-inch article on page-8 that Trump claimed to raise that amount.
Another problem is that the Judiciary has treated this former President with kid gloves rather than boxing gloves for no discernable reason. He has gotten and continues to get special treatment. A lot of our present problems would have been averted had the following occurred. Firstly, Robert Mueller should have indicted Trump, he had the evidence but chose not to do so on the basis of a so-called guideline. Mueller was afraid and took the easy way out. Merrick Garland Muellered America by not doing his job slow walking waiting more than a year to begin his investigation. He too was afraid. And lastly, the SJC appears to be on the take as well. By all rights, they should have let the Appeals Court decision that a President is not above the law, stand. At this time, people that could have done something about Trump are either afraid or corrupt or both. And I haven't forgotten about the foolish millions of Americans that keep supporting him.
You make important points (except for the "no discernible reason" part). Media investigation revealed that our Supreme Court is corrupt, beholden to GOP donors. Yet media continue to relay news about Supreme Court decisions as if they aren't 100% politically bounded (instead of "Heritage Foundation-Appointed Supreme Court Justices vote to...") To my mind, the most non-reported story of our time is that after the January 6 Congressional Committee findings, a Democratic Executive Branch refused and still refuses to swiftly prosecute the ringleaders of the Jan. 6 insurrection, many who were elected officials. The reason is less important than the simple fact that they have decided not to do it. We all know there is no excuse for a 3 year wait before a trial of Donald Trump. Don't you think the failure of our media on this story is almost as great as the failure of our government itself?
I absolutely agree. The media, in their attempt to be fair (so they say) has not accurately or honestly reported the truth. For all I know and suspect, money has corrupted them as well to the extent that they carefully weave their way through the middle of this quagmire, so that no matter who becomes President they'll be safe. They and others including the Democratic Party have yet to come to the realization that we are at war with an internal enemy that would take away our freedoms. It's not a time to be nice or play it safe.
You may be right. I suspect it's more fear of GOP accusations of bias. It's strange, isn't it? Journalists laugh out loud when Putin calls them biased. But it's a farther leap psychologically to accept the plain truth that the GOP is actively working with a foreign adversary and spreading lies to the American public on a daily basis.
We are so far past any legitimacy of fear of liberal bias. This is, and has been since he started running the first time, a question of democracy vs. autocracy. If they didn't know it then, they certainly should have known it soon into his term. It is a journalist's job to know this, and shout it from the rooftops.
Yes. YES. It's infuriating and terrifying.
You may find to be interesting this document n the Amicus Brief to the Trump immunity case. (I think I sourced this link from another part of this thread.)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/307029/20240408130715170_No.%2023-939bsacRetiredFour-StarAdmiralsAndGenerals.pdf
This brief is memorable for its succinct and clear language explaining how and why presidential immunity is a potential wrecking ball for a democratic society..
As Americans, don't we all feel deep shame that our military has to come helmet in hand to beg the Supreme Court not to put them in the position of having to each decide between following our laws or following the orders of their "immune to laws" President? What low point for us all and a sign that our Supreme Court is corrupt beyond repair.
I really believe President Biden needs to appoint two more Justices to undo the effect of Trump and Senator McConnell packing the Court. Had Att'y Gen'l Garland's nomination gone through, as it should have, the Court would be five to four in favor of Republican appointed Justices.
Please send a post card to Chief Justice Roberts and tell him that we do not trust his court to protect the 2024 election. Tump et al will file dozens of merit less lawsuits and cause other chaos. This court has already shown that they are protecting Trump from prosecution. They already seem to have a favorite candidate. It happened in 2000 and the world has suffered greatly.
Why to Roberts and not to Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson? That's my point. Roberts is beholden to the GOP, so of course he has zero interest in protecting the election. It's a given. What about the three liberal justices, though? If their job is to protect our Constitution, how can they remain silent?
I agree with you in theory, Russell, but what can the lady libs do? Even if they get bigly vociferous, then what? I used to think Roberts cared enough about his and SCOTUS' legacy to avoid anything as egregious as granting the foul one immunity, but now not so much.
Thanks for the reply. What NY Times and other main news outlets can do is to create headlines with proper context. If the GOP is working again with Russian agents, then every news article on the GOP must say that at the outset instead of presenting them as a party of equal legitimacy to the Democratic Party. And investigate, investigate, investigate!
I used to believe this too about Roberts. It's still hard for me to face that I was wrong, or that he's been corrupted this extremely.
Any justice on SCOTUS that rules in favor of presidential immunity, should be impeached. We threw off the shackles of kingship and royalty 148 years ago.
Uh… the problem not one slimeball. The problem is the 74 million slimeballs whose odious views the slimball-in-chief represents. This is the America we live in and have been living in for a long time. Half of us are not fit for decent company.
The concern, expressed earlier to Mr Burnham elsewhere on this thread, is also explained another worry. What happens when a likeable version of Trump comes along?
Reagan was the likable version of Trump. Not to me. Nor any Republican for that matter. I hate every last one of the SOBs. But likable to most people, and he used that to do a tremendous amount of damage, so I do get your point.
Good question
Yes. Our media needs to do a better job of fact checking everything that they print about Trump. For example, that he raised 175 mil. Well, as it gets investigated, he must get a bond by a NY based bond company, not a CA based one. Also, they have to have 10% liquidity for the bond they are covering him for, but they do not. And, also, Trump's lawyers told the appeals court that no one would give them the full bond, but the guy who is bonding Trump out says he offered him the full amount, so that is more lies. Rachel Maddow discusses who this bail bondsman is in more detail, and it was posted on my Branch of Democrats Abroad Germany. Here is a link. https://topnewsshow.com/the-rachel-maddow-show-4-8-24/
Thank you for this link. Something funky is going on why my computer. This and the previous link open up this Microsoft warning that says I need to contact the company. I have seen it before; it is a "phishionable" material. Hope that this phishing is not occurring to anyone else.
Too bad those of us without cable TV have been excluded from hearing Rachel. MSNBC used to send out a newsletter that allowed me to connect and listen to quite a few MSNBC programs including Rachel. But now that seems to be gone. They want you to "sign in" to your TV provider in order to listen. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !
I listen to her weekly via podcast. I'm using Grover (free download from the Microsoft Store - I don't know about Apple version), and I get Rachel, Chris Hayes, Nicole Wallace, Jen Psaki, Lawrence O'Donnell and Ari Melber. I think other MSNBC hosts are available, I just haven't looked for them.
I don't have a tv, so I just get links that people send me. I don't want to pay either when it used to be that the main stations were free. That is why when I want to watch soccer I watch on Spanish language stations. I do not have to understand the running commentary to understand Ariba, ariba, and Go-o-o-o-l!
Thank you, B.K., checking out the article now.
I think it may be malware or something.
You're right. To complain: editorial@nytimes.com
Done, ditto! And thanks for the appropriate 'nag'...
Subject: Ludicrously lame journalistic standards with regard to reporting about tRump, et al.
Dear NYT Editorial,
To quote an apt comment to yesterday’s Heather Cox Richardson ‘Letter’:
“Dr. Richardson makes a case in point with her skepticism about Trump claiming to raise 50 million dollars at a fundraiser, conveniently twice the number of Pres. Biden's recent record fundraiser. Yet the screaming headline in the NY Times was: "Trump Fundraiser Rakes in more than 50.5 million..." instead of justified skepticism "Without Verification Trump Team Claims Raising Double the Amount of Biden Fundraiser." Given the sheer number of lies, you would think every Trump headline would have a perfunctory caveat. And that's something media should be placing front and center, don't you all think?”
Absolutely!
I’ve been a loyal reader & subscriber for decades but of late I have had to stop defending the sloppy and often inane editorial NYT decisions and grossly inconsistently applied ‘standards’ regarding way too much of the political & international reporting, especially such things as verification in toto before printing a particular story.
...
In the last day or two, the NYT ran a long feature about a 75-year-old doctor, and some of his patients, and their assessment of the physical and mental fitness of President Biden related to his age, with a somewhat cursory mention of Trump's age. I sent yet another comment to the Times about its bias on the subject.
There is bio age and age in years. Apparently the idiots who work for the press and a huge portion of the American people cannot tell the difference. Biden is clearly biologically younger than Trump. Some may be genes, but a lot of it is lifestyle. Also, when I heard that Ivana fell down the stairs to her death at a point when she was getting inconvenient to Trump because she was claiming credit for things, I noticed how careful the press was not to even imply that he might have pushed her. They did not go there to even prove why he could not have done it. That is how lazy and Trump serving they are. So, he commits treasonous acts and they don't publish it or treat it like a walk in the park on a sunny day with a balmy breeze. I have zero respect for them as a publication. They are just another rag coming out of NYC like the Post and WSJ.
NYT has become a tool of the Russian/far right extremist contingent.
Shows also in the way they cover Biden and his policies/achievements. They even pander to the far left -- anything to erode support for Biden.
More specifically reading them is like reading a Russian Bot! This has been my complaint for over a year. It is apparently growing obvious to everyone.
Spagnoli, It is also in their choice of what to cover that is totally irritating.
I don't read their political stories, but do read the science section, the food section, the book review, their global round up on line, and I do the crossword and a few of their other puzzles.
Michele…Unfortunately the NYT games are addictive for me. Altho it is too late in life to aspire to genius, darned if I don’t frequently struggle with putting the game down until I get that silly affirmation. Often fun…. but sometimes in gnawing way. I may need a step program. lol. (I do “read articles” as well…lol)
LOL. My husband is playing the latests game. I do the crossword and some of the other puzzles as well. They are part of my mental workout.
I was doing them first thing every day too, as I skimmed down, but I have given them up and replaced them with WaPo. Still an oligarchic Republican production, but more coverage and more commentary on articles. Also, we like their crossword puzzle.
I do none of that anymore.
Cancelled my Subscription to the NYT, the paper of rubbish.
I will maintain my Times subscription until, a.- trump is defeated in '24 and is in prison, or b.-trump is elected and his first order of business is to take over the formerly free press. After that, no real reporting will be possible here. My last act will be to sue the Times for the price of my subscription going back to 2015.
Bryan Sean, The NY Times is not faultless; withal, its reporting is generally solid; the paper provides excellent investigative reports; Paul Krugman's columns about the economy are hard to match in any newspaper; many essays are enlightening and world coverage is good. In addition, The Washington Post, MSNBC, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, AP, Reuters, Politico and The Guardian, among others, along with several substacks, including LFAA and Timothy Snyder's 'Thinking about... ' all contribute greatly to my knowledge of the important issues and players at this time. I know that is a lot, and there is more, but I would not dismiss any of them and have not even mentioned very worthwhile foreign sources.
I agree with you. But they should be called out on their cowardice not to preface any news from Trump or the GOP without the context that it comes from a man and a political party that no longer adheres to facts and truth.
What I don't understand is whether they understand who Trump is and what he will do as President again -- how they and all their cohorts will be completely at his mercy without the rule of law to shelter them in their alleged role as as journalists enabling a democratic citizenry to properly govern their own country.
I wonder the same thing. What if they're just so used to the polarity of a two party system that they can't themselves wrap their heads around the new reality that currently we have one political party and one criminal group of highly organized insurgents working with foreign adversaries? I mean, it does sound so dystopian sci-fi, doesn't it?
I noted Eric Lipton's interview of Jared & the status of his Saudi billions.
Eric was interviewed on MSNBC.
I am a very long time Reader of Paul Krugman. I have corresponded with NYTt's legally sharp Eric Lipton, who just completed a penetrating interview of Jared.
I benefited by your NYT "gift" article the other day, thank you again. I can access important work such as one coming in this coming Sunday's magazine.
I prefer using my dollars supporting the many valuable Substack Authors & commenters such as FERN. : -)
I appreciate your choice, Bryan. Several of the publications that I listed provide a good range of subjects. Three or four substacks wouldn't cover what I am get from one of them. As it is, I am reading 6+substacks, without counting Nature Briefing and newsletters provided by several of the newspapers. I highly recommend the Washington Post's, Today's WorldView, authored by Ishaan Tharoor. We each juggle according to areas of interest and budgets. My challenge is where to cut down, because I like to do a few other things in addition to READING!!!
Cheers, Bryan.
Bryan, I'm getting closer, but enjoy the Times for its other content -- Cooking, Games, Science, the Wirecutter, etc. so I may never cancel. It's a dilemma for me.
Then please write their editorial board and complain as a subscriber.
The sad thing is that they don't care. I had a Times sub and cancelled it, moving to the Washington Post. It didn't take long for them to be even worse so I went to The Guardian, which I had until their awful writing on the report that that hack at Justice wrote about Biden's age. Seriously, there's nothing left.
I cancelled my subscription. Now I get my news here and from other Substack writers. Writers who speak truth.
I follow Jennifer Rubin at WaPo, nothing else (unless an opinion piece happens to grab me). Opinions are not quite the same as news.
Same here. Honestly, I get enough from these letters alone, which I've joked to my wife that I think of as the daily "Asshold Gazette." Sadly, the reality isn't all that funny.
How many people are on the NYTs list of subscribers....the Midas Touch YouTube channel has close to 3 million subscribers
I hear your voice Mark. I follow certain world class Authors regardless of their current Platform. such as ANNE APPLEBAUM who is a historian on Ukraine & reporter anything Euro from Moldova to Finland. Anne is able to unravel complex social-political dynamic..
I wrote this below on Feb 13, 2024 to editorial@nytimes.com. To date I have not had the courtesy of a reply. I just re-sent it!
"I lived for many years in NY from 1965-1998 and loved reading the NY Times. I chose to end my subscription today because the coverage has become very unbalanced and irresponsible in giving the former president so much space and in only focusing on the negative aspects of the current president. I am not the only one noticing this. You might take a look at Jennifer Rubin of the WaPo and others to see what I mean.
The two men (both older for sure) are trying to be the winner the election in November and, normally, your coverage might be considered fair. Perhaps that is how your editors were taught in their journalism schools? DEMOCRACY is the issue in this coming election and the Republican candidate will turn our country into an authoritarian one. Democracy will no longer exist.
You MUST do a better job of understanding this and urging your writers to focus on the accomplishments of a very smart, efficient, honorable and compassionate President Biden. Do Not Just Keep being negative. He does not deserve this and We The People do not either!
If I see the trend shifting at the NY Times, I will be back. Otherwise, sadly, this is Goodbye! I would like the courtesy of a reply please."
Very well said.
Done.
All they want to do is sell newspapers. Their motto: " All the news that's fit to print. " Would that they adhere to that dictum.
That motto has been changed to 'All the news that makes a buck".
If it bleeds it reads.
Thanks! Sent them a “pointed” note about the difference between “objective’ and “ingenuous” — or just gullible! — from a retired journalist.
Isn’t the choice between Neutral and Objective? Like many outlets, they stay neutral, presenting both sides as though there is no well-defined context around either candidate. To me, objectivity is fully informed, and reflecting that information in some judgement of the truthfulness of each side.
Yes, that’s definitely relevant, too.
Ingenuous certainly does NOT incorporate the idea of well-informed or including context.
Personally I'd like to get all the facts, which includes context imho, and then draw my own conclusions. I don't need journalism to think for me, but to use resources I don't have to get background and check facts.
You’re right. We don’t need journalists to do our thinking for us. What they would do well to do is provide basic information AND context — that’s what news analysis is.
A bunch of facts, especially presented willy-nilly, without people being able to figure out if all the info is there, or how parts of it relate to other parts, are not as helpful as some might think.
People LIKE news analysis, not to have someone think for them, but to stimulate thought, and to let us see the full picture - we don’t all have all the ideas all on our own. It doesn’t hurt to hear someone else’s opinion now and then. BUT, there’s a difference between news and analysis and informed commentary … they have their places, for whichever ones we feel like paying attention to.
Thanks, Snarky Grandma!
Also, see what the Media and Democracy Project suggests (above).
I got tired of complaining, and was willing to give up the puzzles as a form of boycott, when I cancelled my subscription. My first warning was before Biden was elected when I told them the April before that I was worried about Trump letting us know he was going to engage in a coup, and they did not publish it in a comment to an article. I had also written that Baron should be removed from the home by the Department of Children and Family Services for neglect during covid when I saw what a quack his dad was of it, and his mom too. I understand that there are children in more obvious dire physical need, but emotionally that household must be a ticking time bomb for the children. So, they send me links, but I delete them, and it feels satisfying. I am not yet there with the WaPo. My daughter and I often do the crossword puzzles together over Signal.
Thanks!! Sent my soon-to-be ignored email, too. Added a line about their complicity, too.
Done! Thx for the idea.
Even MSNBC reported the $50MM as fact without context.
If the bond is bogus is that a fraud upon the Court? Perpetrated by Trump and his buddy who used companies under his control to place the bond? Would the full bond requirement pre the appeals court ruling be reinstated?
Truth Social investing should be under investigation beyond the two already tied to insider trading.
Trump should be a pariah but billionaires and Republican politicians flock to him.
Tim Scott has bizarrely debased himself to curry favor with Trump in hopes of a VP nomination.
Shameful.
As racist as tRump is, how does Tim Scott think he's going to be the VP?
the former guy would select a martian as VP if he thought he could make him heel on command (or just by thinking it in his head).
GOP magical thinking knows no bounds.
It’s all about taxes. Greed wins!
All of which is glaring and continued evidence that there is too much money in politics on both sides.
When do we get publicly funded elections with ranked choice voting?
As far as I can tell there is no context for the 50 mil. TFG hosted a private 250K/plate fundraiser. We don't know how many attended because journalists were excluded.
About the bond, I think it is under investigation in and of itself because the company isn't NY-based. James has demanded that the co. 'justify' its bond by April 22, meaning prove that it has the cash to pay up and possibly disclose the collateral TFG put up. I haven't heard if the appeals court is looking into the lie about no company willing or able to post the whole $454 mil that led to the reduction. It has been reported that the guy who posted the 175 was willing to go for the whole 454, so f I were on the appeals bench I'd be pretty pissed off at the poor pitiful me act.
About the IPO, beside TFG trying to screw his co-founders out of their stock, a couple of guys are in the tank for insider trading, and it's come to light that Truth has been supported by a Russian American businessman. Here's a Rolling Stone article about the co's history. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/truth-social-drama-donald-trump-lawsuits-ipo-1234999198/
AI gives Russia, China new tools to sow division in the U.S. ... (NBCNews) See link below.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/china-russia-ai-divide-us-society-undermine-us-elections-power-rcna142880
'Russian propaganda being said 'on House floor:' GOP Rep ...' (NewsNation) See link below.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/russia-at-war/russian-propaganda-house-floor-turner/
'Russian disinformation is about immigration. The real aim ...' (AP) See link below.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-election-trump-immigration-disinformation-tiktok-youtube-ce518c6cd101048f896025179ef19997
'Russia's 2024 election interference has already begun' (NBCNews) See link below
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/russias-2024-election-interference-already-begun-rcna134204
'A new lens into the ongoing folly of Republican' 'Russia ...(WAPO) Link below is not gifted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/21/smirnov-russia-republicans-bidens-fbi/
'Russian trolls target U.S. support for Ukraine, Kremlin ... '(WAPO) Sorry, link below not gifted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/08/russia-propaganda-us-ukraine/
Yes, they report it, but then continue to publish Trump news with headlines that don't reflect any of that context. It's a bizarre disconnect pretending the news on collusion and election interference isn't related to the daily actions and statements of Trump and his campaign.
But don’t you understand that yes the New York Times also wants readers in order to sell advertising? Cynical to not think they too want a cut of the MAGA business.
Fern, as I read HCR's reporting of trompy's team managing his image by using edited video rather than standing before a live broad audience, I immediately thought that they may use AI videos to make him look younger, thinner and a more effective speaker -- not to mention inserting him into situations (let's say disaster relief) that he'd not otherwise to participate in -- thus lending him some humanity which he lacks as much as that $175MM.
And they can always show how humane and caring tfg is by doctoring his humane and caring tossing of paper towel rolls to Hurricane Maria victims in Puerto Rico.
Thank you for a real laugh. Your suggestion is perfection!
You make me smile right now :)
I’m happy to have made you smile. And may I ask the origin of your name? I am always curious about surnames and yours has puzzled me from the first time I saw it. This may make you laugh: I remember when Hank Aaron beat Babe Ruth’s home run record, but I heard it and assumed from the last name, if I thought of it, that he was Jewish. Two days ago, as the anniversary of the hit was being celebrated, I saw Hank Aaron on TV. He was black like Jackie Robinson. Had a good laugh with a black friend and hope you will laugh too.
I'm a former journalist, having spent many years as a freelancer (including for the NYT) and then as a senior editor at HBR. More than once, I have seen editorial decisions made at the top that were beyond sketchy in a play for the almighty dollar. Once, a publication I wrote for put a Microsoft ad on the front cover, and people quit over it. Unfortunately, one does not need a certificate or a license to practice "journalism" with the result that journalistic ethics have long since gone by the wayside.
I don't believe that you are speaking for all and, perhaps, not many.
Thank you, Fern McBride. I’ve been writing about bots screwing polls that show TFG and Biden running “equal.”
Here is one way to help. This group does great work. I just signed.
https://www.mediaanddemocracyproject.org/2024-election-coverage
At a glance, I love their line:
"COVER ELECTIONS LIKE THEY MATTER MORE THAN SPORTS SCORES"
Thanks, just signed it. Former journalist here.
Bronwyn, I tend to be cynical about signing these sorts of petitions, believing them to be more about data harvesting than anything they hope to accomplish. As a former journalist, do you think the publishing Powers-That-Be would actually agree to alter their coverage based on these petitions?
(As to data harvesting, I've donated to various Dem candidates online over the last 20 years or so, and I get bombarded daily with text or email requests for donations from candidates around the country. If I block the number or hit "unsubscribe" they just switch and hit me up again. Having my inboxes fill with these requests, as well as from others who purchase the data, gets annoying.)
I exclusively send donations by check. I do get a lot of junk mail from candidates, but I recycle it. I also never share my cell phone number, so no texts.
Yes. This plus uncertainty as to who is actually sending an email is why I have stopped responding to any online request for money.
Maybe. But this organization is serious. Check out their website.
Done. Thank you!
Signed. Thank you!
Signed, Thanks!
Done!
Signed. Thanks.
For fun, I open Fox comments to combat the expected remarks of those influenced by those trolls. Funny they exhibit classical , terminology and are fully brainwashed. It’s not possible to differentiate between the Russian trolls and their victims; they both exhibit the same stances. History often repeats itself. Will we rid ourselves of this current menace ? Or will we re-elect him again? I’m now making bets.
That is I’m not making bets.
Thanks for clarifying! Sadly, both work...
I listened to the Ultra podcast in late 2022. I felt it was an important period of history to understand in the context of the right wing threats to our democracy today.
After paying attention to the current drama leading up to the Trump trials, I recently decided to go back to the second half of Rachel’s series which dealt with the sedition trial and its surprise mistrial outcome. Perhaps had all of the senators involved been prosecuted in full, fascism might have been expunged rather than simply driven into hiding.
Interesting that after the mistrial, conclusive evidence was found in Germany detailing the extent of the collusion. Unfortunately, president Truman intervened in the release of a report on that collusion and the senate members who were involved. The Nazi regime was an internal political threat to democracy not just a military threat. Truman’s reasoning was that it was too explosive to become public but perhaps the real reason was related to his own prior membership in the senate.
The podcast is still available (MSNBC.COM/ULTRA) and Rachel has a book in progress. It is important history.
I think that her book, Prequel (details of the Ultra podcast), is out already; is there another one in the works?
I’ve got it waiting for pickup at my local library. Thanks again for mentioning it.
Thanks for mentioning that. I hadn’t seen it out. I think she was only working on one!
Yes, and the "too explosive" argument is sickening. If you treat the America public like children, they'll behave that way. We are quite able to believe some elected officials are criminals and we expect them held to account.
It’s ironic that media reports on, for instance, a man caught in the act of murdering someone and refers to the crime as ‘alleged.’ That word in front of #45 claims of anything would do.
Russell, you would think and you can find articles, but I guess not in media like the NYT. The Oregonian's big story yesterday was how people can look up the PERS retirement benefits of every retired public employee who worked in Oregon. This has been possible for several years, but hey, people need to be reminded. It's called stirring the pot. Btw, the person who receives the highest monthly benefit is a former Oregon football coach.
And he makes more in a month than I make in a year for 28 years of active law enforcement service.
Pretty amazing what the priorities are. At this point, some of them have to make more than their athletes.
Indeed. And I make more than my friend who is a retired public school band director who taught for 30 years...
Depends on the school district and also what tier. We are both tier one.
He was with Springfield able Tier 1. I think I just made more money….
I salute your service to some of my fellow citizens, Ally.
🙏😇🤝🙂✌️
The Ultra by Maddow was an incredible piece. Highly recommend. The lack of print worth reading but for the sensationalism, and online venues , put many a newspaper in jeopardy atop ‘downsizing’ every business laborer knows..signs of the times.
I’d be first to sign their ticket -them traitors/the Magats /the Russianinskys, on a slow boat (one way) to Russia…here’s your sign!
How’s that go…history repeats itself?
Russell, Dave Fake News reports that both the NYT and WAPO are implementing a new daily feature called “The Trump Lies”. Using the top quarter of Page 3 in bold script, it says “REFER TO PAGE ONE ABOVE THE FOLD. Here within contains our own lies”
Please note neither their news or editorial departments approved this feature; it is the work of the new underground movement, “The Demosthenes Society” that hacked the copywriter’s password
“Yet the screaming headline in the NY Times …”
This is why I dropped the NYT. I have had well enough of their normalization of the unconscionable.
The only people that believe tfg are his sycophants. Most everything he says is the exact opposite of the truth. If the press were doing its job it would fact check every quote tfg made.
His lies far outnumber his truths. Assume anything he says is B.S.
I haven't found a single article to read in the NYT Since Friday.
The Dark Energy article was phenomenal though
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/science/space/astronomy-universe-dark-energy.html
I've been watching the NY Times coverage with increasing dismay. They seem to be constantly beating the drum that America is broken and that Biden is not the solution. Meanwhile they give Trump a glossing over--such as the headline on Trump raising $50 million. Can't figure out what's going on with the Gray Lady. But mostly they relentlessly come back to Biden being unpopular, too old, not the solution, doing poorly in polls, etc.
the New York Times, "the paper of record" has come down; the editorial and news staff, headline writers; the SENSIBILITY, what and how they choose to portray the news, regarding what is important to report and where they put it in their "paper" especially online in these fraught times has been very disappointing. I have been reading this paper for years and defending it. It seems that the minds that run it now are often irresponsible. They are skating on their old reputation. Younger people don't know better than this, a paper that screams of wanting to portray both sides for fear of criticism and loss of readership.., the bottom line/advertisers.